Tuesday, July 02, 2019

Blind Item #2

This foreign born A list singer who frequently works with this A+ list singer hasn't publicly supported her because he is trying to work with a different A+/A list singer who works with someone else and doesn't want to upset them.

66 comments:

  1. Ed sheeran/Taylor/Katy Perry?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or Ed/Taylor/Kenny Chesney

      Delete
    2. https://tasteofcountry.com/kenny-chesney-tip-of-my-tongue/

      Delete
  2. Ed Sheeran and Ariana Grande??

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sheeran, Swift and someone else. Can't be the pride thing with Katy because she would be all over that.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes I'm sure Ed Doesn't want to piss off Kenny Chesney, or bieber, or Jesus or whatever

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's Ed, Bieber and scooter

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Tay wasn't getting Ed laid so he jumped ship

      Delete
  6. It's astonishing to me that nobody seems to be on Taylor's side in all of this. I'm neither here nor there, but a similar thing happened with David Bowie, and luckily he had the biggest successes of his career after his contract with MainMan expired.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The reason no one is on Taylor's side is because she was caught fabricating and embellishing a "woe is me" story that she's using for the purposes of posturing, virtue signaling, to gain sympathy, and to incite online harrassment....ALL AHEAD OF AN ALBULM RELEASE (which curiously doesn't seem to be as high anticipated as her prior efforts). Girl went so far as to drag as MANY names into this mess as she could. I think she's truly fearful that her most successful days are behind her, and she has good reason for concern - as IMO, her glory days ARE over. She's unlikely to see the success she previously had. It sucks, but pop radio simply isn't very welcoming to women once they hit 30. There are exceptions here and there of course, but overall Top 40 skews toward the SUPER young. I bet Taylor is feeling a bit insecure that the public is more receptive to output from artists like Billie Eilish or even Ariana more so than they are to Taylor.

      Insecurity is no excuse to accuse people of sexism and bigotry simply because one desperately desires to generate headlines and virtue signal, however. It's all very disingenuous because it's prior to a record release.

      Delete
    2. Cant blame this one on society. Tay tay cat lady is just speedily and quickly aging out of her prime demos! Katy perry is still hanging in there and staying relevant

      Delete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Wouldn't Scooter be the manager nobody wants to upset right now?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Absolutely he just paid 300 million for Tay's catalogue

      Delete
  9. Trish, is someone fucking about with your account?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Not you, fuckstick, the real one.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Because you have a different avatar.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ed has a hit with Bieber,he has worked with him many times The answer is Ed Sheeran,Ariana,with Scooter being the person he does want to upset.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's Del, Do tell.

    Hey, almost a poem!😁

    ReplyDelete
  14. Oh you are the pathetic "fangirl" hanging off the coattails. Fuck off ya blimey cunt

    ReplyDelete
  15. Have no idea who that is.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Oh I'm so hurt, Derek.😁

    How can you be so beastly?!

    Well from a Tintin haired ansl polyp with obsessive stalking tendencies and mommy if not grandmommy issues, quite easily it seems.

    ReplyDelete
  17. We can't expect girls like Taylor and Kesha to live in a regular world of contract law.

    They're pretty.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Except if she kept asking about buying back the rights to her songs and they tied it in to her re-signing a contract with them, which she didn't want to do, that is very different.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Her getting her masters was contingent upon signing a 10 year contract. Upon execution of the contract, she would have immediate possession of the masters. It's not like she had to wait until the 10 years ran out BEFORE gaining access to them. Also, she was either mistaken or outright lying when she said she would have to "earn them back, one by one". Take your pick.

      Delete
  19. I agree with ed, ariana, scooter

    ReplyDelete
  20. Sorry, the label big in this case comes across as a douchebag.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Do Tell, if they did something illegally, she should sue them.

    If they negotiated in a completely-legal manner which hurt her precious feelings, that's 1000x worse. She's so pretty, you see.

    ReplyDelete
  22. That's one side of the story. Her side says that they kept dragging it out, offering one album back at a time. As you said, take your pick, there are two sides. I really doubt someone as career-oriented as Taylor Swift would give up a chance to reclaim control over her work.

    Also, her contract expired in 2018, so it isn't as if she broke it.

    ReplyDelete
  23. well, J, if she was supposed to get her masters back on completion of her ten year contract, which she has completed, not broken, then yes, they did stab her in the back. Yet they sold her stuff to Scooter Braun.

    So I think the story about fulfilling the ten year contract and getting her masters back isn't quite what's going on.

    ReplyDelete
  24. @Do Tell, you are mistaken. Had she signed the new 10-year contract, she would have been given immediate access to her masters. It was not required that she wait for the 10 year period to expire first.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Legal or illegal?

    Is she an empowered millionaire businessperson capable of handling things, or is she a little crying girl we all need to rush in and protect?

    I know the answer - it all depends on what she wants at the moment.

    ReplyDelete
  26. @DoTell...NO ONE is accusing Taylor of breach of contract here. She fulfilled her original contract, which did not provide access to her masters. This is NOT out of the ordinary, btw.

    She and her label were trying to renegotiate for her to renew her contract once it expired. Her wish was for her to have access to her masters. The contract proposal by Borchetta PROVIDED TAYLOR IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO HER MASTERS UPON EXECUTION/SIGNATURE. So if Taylor had re-signed with Borchetta on 6/30/2019 for a period of 10 full years...TAYLOR WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO HER MASTERS IMMEDIATELY, AS IN - RIGHT NOW. 2019

    Do you understand?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Team Taylor on this one.

    When scooter put his wife Yael up to post in his defense and airing the dirty laundry I laughed out loud.

    Although, they both will be fine and this won’t ding either of them long term.

    ReplyDelete
  28. My theory is Taylor posted this to raise awareness for other young artist to PAY ATTENTION to the fine prints on contracts.

    Of course lots of egos are involved but this just raised the awareness that the behind the scenes music people can be really powerful and record contracts don’t really benefit the artist. Remember TLC?

    ReplyDelete
  29. I have a really hard time believing that she wasn't aware in the slightest capacity this was going to happen! First they say her father knew, then she said he didn't! If she was offered the chance to pay for it but didn't can she really cry foul here? For as much as she hates Kimmode she sure knows how to use the same PR "victim" charade they always roll out!

    ReplyDelete
  30. The rights to her masters should not have been contingent at all on her committing the next ten years of her life to them. She gave them ten years and made plenty of dough for them. The label bigs are assholes.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Many contracts do not provide access tk masters at all, so this offer was quite reasonable. Also, the proposed contract was not tied to album releases, but rather for a specific duration of time. Taylor could have released 1 album in that 10 year period, and lived solely off the income from having access to her masters - and NOT have been in breach.

      Again...it was VERY reasonable, and VERY MUCH tilted in Taylor's favor - however, Taylor wanted to shop around and see if other labels might offer her more money. She found one that would, and made the decision to leave her past behind. This was corroborated by BOTH Taylor AND Scott Borchetta.

      But try again.

      Delete
  31. As per Taylor Swift,:

    "I was given an opportunity to sign back up to Big Machine Records and ‘earn’ one album back at a time, one for every new one I turned in"

    So we were both off. It wasn't contingent on her finishing her last contract and she would not have gained immediate access to all her rights with a new ten year contract.

    Swift should have been given an opportunity to buy her rights outright with no contract commitment.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @DoTell....do you honestly believe anything Taylor says after the lies she pulled with Kanye re 'Famous'?!?

      At this point, unless what Taylor says is corroborated by at least one other individual (but preferably more), then I simply have a hard time believing her at face value. Taylor is now an OFFICIAL, DOCUMENTED LIAR. Moreover, Taylor has a well-documented history of bullying and inciting hate whenever she sees fit - via her song lyrics, online antics, music videos, and conduct during interviews.

      Taylor is faker than Kim Zolciak's busted @ss trout lips, and only takes to virtue signaling or posturing when she thinks it will benefit her significantly to do so. The album release is what is motivating Taylor to throw this latest tantrum, because she is scared at not matching her prior success. Guess she's been used to getting her way since birth, having grown up in such privilege. *barfs*

      Delete
  32. And pretty flowers. She should have been given flowers.

    And teddy bears.

    SHAME on those naughty people doing something completely within their rights which wasn't what li'l Taylor wanted.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Do Tell-- I agree, the way I'm understanding it, she was balking at their ridiculous conditions, no real "sale" was offered to her, and they weren't accepting anything she would offer.

    I think this has to do with an artist wanting to own their work, and not feel powerless about the future of those works. Like her or not, I think Taylor everyone can agree controls her image enough that she would not want others to have the rights to her music, if she could avoid it. I truly dont believe this has anything to do with the release of her album (the timing of the one single for Pride Month WAS TOTALLY a PR move). I also dont think it matters that she already is rich. It was a shifty deal, handled shittily, and she has the right to be mad and hurt.

    I'd like to see this be the end of 5+ album album w/ company outright owning songs type of new artist contracts.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Yummy- a whole new album to get one old album's rights...that would be another another seven albums...most artists dont have seven albums in their entire career. I dont think that's particularly generous.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Vita...I am having difficulty understanding HOW you and @DoTell are having SUCH a hard time understanding the terms of the proposed 10 year contract that Borchetta offered to Swift. Like, I am FLABBERGASTED this is not sinking in...*eye roll*

      Taylor either LIED about having to "earn her masters back one by one", or she was severely misunderstood/confused. Scott Borchetta refuted her claims in entirely, and produced receipts. Taylor's proposed contract would have given her IMMEDIATE ACCESS TO ALL OF HER MASTERS. As in, Taylor would have gotten her masters AS SOON AS THE INK DRIED AFTER SHE SIGNED. Do you read me?!? Is this clear?!?!

      Also, the proposed contract was NOT TIED TO ALBUM RELEASES, per Borchetta. So...Taylor could have released as little or as much as she would have liked during the 10-year term, it would have had ZERO bearing on her access to her masters AND SHE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN IN BREACH.

      Ultimately, it all came down to money. Taylor wanted to shop around to other labels. She choose not to renew with Borchetta, and freely opted to walk away from her past (and her masters).

      These are not difficult concepts to grasp. I am beginning to wonder if you are both purposefully refusing to accept these truths because they don't fit your preferred narrative as die-hard Swifty fans....

      Delete
  35. Oho, people having a net worth of 100s of millions of dollars are fighting with people having a net worth 10s of millions of dollars? So people having 1000s of dollars yearly income are fighting for them?
    SCREW THEM BOTH!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Is anyone else creeped out that Derek Harvey is now using Tricia's name? I bet he's just purchased a blowup doll and has named her Tricia. Seek help, Derek. You are officially creepy now.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Is Derek Harvey the user who had David Bowie as his avatar? Or am I getting him mixed up with someone else? I always assumed Derek was the user who always replied under the revealed blinds with "NAILED ITTTTT!!!" Is this the same person? If so, what happened to him exactly? Was he banned? Lol.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Yes, "Nailed it" was Derek who them morphed into other users such as DontQuitYourDayJob. He is one disturbed MFer. I'm curious if his makes wind chimes out of the bones of his victims. It's gone from troll to just this side of Silence of the Lambs level of creepy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. @Thia, any idea what led Derek down the path to insanity? Insane jealousy of Tricia? Or something more?

      Delete
  39. Derek wants to make a skin suit out of Tricia and wear her. Taytay needs to grow the fuck up.

    ReplyDelete
  40. I'm just here for the yummy boogers.

    ReplyDelete
  41. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Oh awesome, looks like they sent a real shill to CDAN today. It's always fun when screen names you've never seen before start launching one giant paragraph after another. I don't give a sh!t about Tay Tay and her career that daddy bought her, but shills are scum.

    ReplyDelete
  43. At least CDAN has earned the half educated shills nowadays, they finally stopped sending the bots and chinglish/engrish writers that you see on other sites after we kept laughing at them.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Took me a minute to notice the two different spellings of Tricia/Trisha. Disturbing indeed.

    ReplyDelete
  45. @Ymmy - I'm trying to remember. I first came here in either 2013 or 2014. Someone I followed on Twitter retweeted Enty and it instantly caught my eye so I went down the rabbit hole and Derek was already gunning for her. He seemed irritated that she'd post first or guess correctly before he did. Tricia clearly has some insider knowledge and that just seemed to make him mad. Tricia engaged with him much more back then and really put him in his place a few times. Now she just ignores him, which obviously makes him more mad. She's also become a fan favorite and has been for quite some time because she's clearly a nice person and has interesting stories and that, I think, it what sent him over the edge. Remember last year when Enty did reader photos. He just about lost his mind. It's just so odd that a random internet person can get so angry with another random internet person. I don't get it. (Anyone reading, feel free to correct if I'm remembering wrong). I also remember Sandy from back then and he's super nice as well.

    ReplyDelete
  46. I thought Derek was the guy who looked like Jason Bateman? I have been on here for so many years and don't remember such animosity. There were a few here and there, but this anger....wow!

    ReplyDelete
  47. did Taylor go on a rant or something? is that what Bieber's whole weird Instagram post was about?

    ReplyDelete
  48. that leprechaun ed Sheeran and Ariana Grande,.

    ReplyDelete
  49. ...Annnd somewhere in the swirl of all this, Todrick Hall, buddy of Taylor Swift, inadvertently OUTED her. Sure did.
    I just read the timeline. Swift is once again playing up the 'victim' role. Two possible reasons:1. Shes got a new album coming out in August 2. This is an attempt to strongarm Scooter Braun into giving her the master tapes on HER terms. To go public like this was a mistake. What she should have done was try to become a major shareholder (as her father is) of the company that owns the masters.

    ReplyDelete
  50. So the asshole won't support the person who helped break him in the US and provided endless support while the Jonas Bros. and even Brandon Urie can? what a gutless loser. Even Styles and Ri-Ri who both hate her guts showed support because they understand the bigger picture.

    ReplyDelete
  51. It's not as if the ENTIRE $300m price was contingent upon Swift's back catalogue, on about 80-90%. BMG's entire fortune was based upon Swift's work, they were a tiny micro indie Country label and Swift was their first artist. She did offer to pay full price but was turned down. She has a $300m+ fortune herself, her dad is in finance and could asily raise more capital. Scooter had to goto the people behind the KUshner's to get the money. That's the insider detail, a lover's tiff with Kloss. Her ex- stabbed her in the back.

    ReplyDelete
  52. As a corporate attorney, I just want to add that not only do they have iron-clad NDA’s on those shareholder calls, but disclosing non-public info that you learn on those calls is technically a felony in most states. Even if Taylor’s dad attended the conference call, he wouldn’t have been allowed to tell her anything. Probably why he chose not to attend. I would have advised him to do the same.

    ReplyDelete
  53. There should be more concern about where Derek is getting the materials for his Trisha skin suit.

    ReplyDelete

Advertisements

Popular Posts from the last 30 days